VELURI RAJA RAJESWARI Vs. VELURI SANTHANSAGAR REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This CRP is directed against the order dated 09.02.2010 passed in IA No. 815 of 2009 in FCOP No. 340 of 2008 by the Judge, Family Court, Nellore, SPSS Nellore District. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The petitioner herein is the wife of the first respondent herein. The second respondent is the mother of the first respondent. The petitioner initially filed a suit for return of gold and silver ornaments and the amount given towards household articles etc., amounting to Rs. 8,02,500/-. Subsequently, the said suit was converted as FCOP No. 340 of 2008. It appears that after the respondents filed counter, issues were framed and both sides evidence was closed. When the case was posted for arguments, the petitioner herein filed IA No. 815 of 2009 in FCOP No. 340 of 2008 seeking to amend the prayer column to claim a further sum of Rs. 80,000/- towards silver articles, Rs. 5,00,000/- towards dowry amount and Rs. 5,00,000/- towards compensation and damages for the mental torture and emotional distress on account of marital disturbance due to illegal acts of the respondents. The lower Court dismissed the said petition holding that the claim is barred by limitation under Article 113 of the Limitation Act. Challenging the said order this revision has been filed.

(2.) Smt. M. Vidyavathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has referred all her claims in her plaint averments and the amendment now sought is not a new case. It is also her submission that since the proceedings are pending in the Court Section 113 of the Limitation Act has no application.

(3.) On the other hand, Sri M. Venkata Narayana, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that no amendment can be allowed after the trial has commenced and in this case trial has not only commenced but the trial is over and the case was posted for arguments. It is also his submission that there is nothing on record to say that the petitioner in spite of due diligence could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.